Peer Review

What It Does

Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback.

How It Works

This skill ships as a ClawHub package. After installation, use it when your task matches what the SKILL.md describes (commands, tools, and prerequisites).

Key Features

• ClawHub-native — Install with npx clawhub@latest install peer-review.
• Upstream docs — Full behaviour lives in SKILL.md linked from Source.
• Agent-triggered — Activate via your usual OpenClaw / agent workflows.

Requirements

Use the Requirements section below as a checklist before enabling advanced features.

Use Cases

• Match intent — Use when the user task aligns with what this skill is built for.
• Combine safely — Pair with keys and tools listed under Requirements.